1945 Present: Keuneman S.P.J.

WOOLDRIDGE, Petitioner, and WOOLDRIDGE, Respondent.

IN THE MATTER OF A PETITION UNDER THE CEYLON DIVORCE JURISDICTION
ORDER IN COUNCIL 1936, AND THE CEYLON (NON-
DOMICILED PARTIES) DIVORCE RULES, 1936.

Divorce Suit No. 34.

Divorce-Desertion as ground-Requirements necessary to confer jurisdiction on Court-Indian and Colonial Divorce Jurisdiction Act, 1940 (3 and i Geo. 6, c. 35) s. 2.

In a suit for dissolution of marriage on the ground of desertion, under section 2 of the Indian and Colonial Jurisdiction Act, 1940, the only two requirements to confer jurisdiction on the Court are that the plaintiff resided in Ceylon at the time of the petition and that the parties to the marriage last resided together in Ceylon. The alternative requirement that the marriage should have been solemnized in Ceylon has no applica-tion to suits on other grounds than " adultery, cruelty, or crime ".

ACTION for divorce under the Indian and Colonial Divorce Jurisdiction Act of 1926.

E. F. N. Gratiaen, for the petitioner.

No appearance for the respondent.

November 15, 1945. KEUNEMAN S.P.J.-

In this case Col. Wooldridge seeks the dissolution of his marriage with his wife on the ground that she deserted him on April 22, 1942, without cause. The suit was brought on September 5, 1945.

The petitioner has proved that he now resides in Ceylon, and that the parties to the marriage last resided in Ceylon. For some years the relations between the spouses had been unhappy and there were quarrels, principally due to the fact that the wife flirted with other men. There had been periods of separation for various causes. Eventually the wife and child joined the petitioner in Ceylon on April 16, 1942, but they only lived together till April 22, 1942, when, after violent quarrelling, the wife left the petitioner saying she would have nothing further to do with, him. She apparently went to Delhi and thereafter to Bangalore.

For some little time the petitioner gave his wife a good allowance, but when he was satisfied that she would not change her mind he reduced the allowance to the bare minimum, viz., an allowance for the child only. This evidence is supported by the wife's letter of May 28, 1945, in which she said-" When I left you on April 22, 1942, I had no intention of ever returning to you and I still have none ". But the circumstances under

which this letter came to be written are somewhat mysterious and I do not think too much reliance can be placed on the admission in the letter.

An affidavit from Monica Walford has also been tendered in evidence. This lady had known both Col. and Mrs. Wooldridge well, and had been married in Singapore from their house. In April, 1942, the wife told her that she was leaving her husband and going to India, and that she had decided that she would never return to him. There is possibly some irregularity in admitting this evidence in view of the fact that prior leave of Court had not been obtained. But it is common knowledge that in October, 1945, when the affidavit was signed the transport position was very critical, and only very short notice was given when passages were available, and failure to take up a passage when offered entailed considerable delay in obtaining another passage. Under these special circumstances, and in view of the fact that I think the affidavit is bona fide, I allow the affidavit to be read in evidence.

The affidavit supports the petitioner's story, but even apart from it, I think the petitioner has proved that his wife who was then with him in Ceylon deserted him on April 22, 1942, without cause. I hold that on that date she left him intending not to return to him again, and I think the fault should be attributed to her. More than three years have elapsed from that date to the bringing of this suit.

The question of jurisdiction has caused me some anxiety. Under the Indian and Colonial